Wednesday, July 21, 2010

One More Reason Wal-Mart Deserves Nobel Prize


NY Times Economix Blog -- "Mr. Mobarak, a Bangladeshi who has advised his country’s government, found that the presence of apparel jobs in Bangladesh appears to bolster school enrollments of girls, especially for young girls (see chart above).

“A doubling of garment jobs causes a 6.71 percent increase in the probability that a 5-year-old girl is in school,” Mr. Mobarak writes in a summary of his findings.

For India, Bangladesh and other developing countries, these findings provide a reason for optimism. Governments in these places are struggling to improve the quality of infrastructure — hard (highways, ports, electricity) and soft (schools, courts, basic governance) – but private forces unleashed by nascent economic reforms and globalization are not standing idly by. They are already changing societies and economies."

MP: Thanks to Milton Recht for sending this along, and for pointing out that Wal-Mart should get some of the credit for this phenomenon by providing a market for all of the clothing produced in countries like Bangladesh. 

11 Comments:

At 7/22/2010 4:53 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...

Their actions against the US are probably why they'll never get one.

 
At 7/22/2010 8:02 AM, Blogger Paul said...

what actions, sethstorm? Decent products at cheap prices? Oh, the scum and villainy!

 
At 7/22/2010 8:16 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Their actions against the US are probably why they'll never get one"...

Hmmm, it seems that sethstorm's might possibly have a problem with little girls going to school...

Then of course if that's NOT the problem sethstorm could always open up a garment factory in his home town giving people jobs...

Question is, how well would sethstorm's factory compete with those in Bangladesh especially in light of the heavy hand of the federal government interfering in every step of the process towards profit?

 
At 7/22/2010 9:40 AM, Blogger David said...

Linked: worthwhile reading & viewing

 
At 7/22/2010 11:10 AM, Blogger GW South said...

The comments on the article are brutal, such as the one by Chris from Chicago who is angry at them for the poor wages they pay. Clearly it is still a decent job for these girls, or else they wouldn't take the job. That's the main aspect critics of globalization miss - these aren't naive people who are being taken advantage of with a pay of only $23/month - it's still a far better option than working the fields, and it is the best option for these workers. That is why they take the job in the first place!

 
At 7/22/2010 3:14 PM, Blogger Irrippi said...

They've certainly done more for international peace and prosperity than Obama or Gore.

 
At 7/22/2010 3:40 PM, Blogger pkd said...

Do opponents of "sweatshops" like Naomi Wolf even read the NYT?

 
At 7/22/2010 4:12 PM, Blogger sethstorm said...


Question is, how well would sethstorm's factory compete with those in Bangladesh especially in light of the heavy hand of the federal government interfering in every step of the process towards profit?

How fast can you level/colonize Bangladesh? Yes, it is a valid answer to consider the takeover of what is now Bangladesh. Clear it, offer US citizens very good positions(and protection) for asking to live and work there under US standards.

Interesting that in many of the countries from which the US imports goods/services, they are despotic in nature. Less free, more likely to dispose of critics.

 
At 7/22/2010 6:14 PM, Blogger Craig said...

these aren't naive people who are being taken advantage of with a pay of only $23/month

I wonder if Chris knows how much $23 buys in Bangladesh.

 
At 7/22/2010 10:33 PM, Blogger Nate said...

No one's obviously against little Bangladeshi girls' enrollment in school. Employment of any kind in nations where little exists is good; and if walmart offers that, it's a step in the right direction. In the U.S., however, it's been walmart's policy to intentionally withhold pay from workers- both citizen and noncitizen alike- and engage in other pretty egregious acts to maximize profits that often come at the expense of the public (chemical dumps, workers receiving so little pay incentivizing them to rely on state welfare, etc.) Funny how the quest for profit is glorified, even if at the expense of the public. You all do realize that actual enforcement of regulations would likely have prevented the bp spill, don't you?

 
At 7/26/2010 4:57 AM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> You all do realize that actual enforcement of regulations would likely have prevented the bp spill, don't you?

What I realize is that you're a frothing liberal twit when you make unfounded and particularly counterfactual comments like that.

There's ample evidence that this was a preventable "Challenger" disaster, but government regulations were at least a large part of the fault -- There were people (i.e., engineers) arguing that the extension of certain working presumptions about the tech being used was highly questionable in this case -- but the regulations said "do it this way, and only this way", and so they did.

The results are just the same as that of the Challenger -- a freakin' disaster because the ones saying "do it" were largely unaccountable.

CLUE <---- Get one, they're FREE!!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home